I .Generalities of translation Lecture 1. Translation and translating

P l a n

1. What is translation?

2. Translation as a process

3. Translation as a product

4. Equivalence in Translation

5. The Rules for Adequate Translation

6. Translation Loss

Basic terms and notions which are frequently used in the theory and practice of translation

text — any given stretch of speech or writing produced in a given language and assumed to make a coherent whole (a minimal text may consists of a single word, for example, "Stop!" preceded and followed by a period of silence; a maximal text may run into volumes);

source language (SL) — the language in which the text requiring translation is couched;

target language (TL) — the language into which the original text is to be translated;

source text (ST) — the text requiring translation;

target text (TT) — the text which is a translation of the source text.

What is translation? Documentary evidence of translation can be traced back for at least two millennia and present-day international communication depends heavily on it. In spite of having been a hotly debated topic over a long period of time; translation still seems to be a mysterious phenomenon. It still lacks a comprehensive theory which can explain what it is and how it happens.

Translation has been variously defined. The following definitions may be considered typical. They raise issues which we will discuss in detail later.

Translation is the expression in another language (or target language) of what has been expressed in another, source language.

Translation is the replacement of a text in one language by an equivalent text in a second language.

Translation is the process or result of converting information from one language into another. The aim is to produce as accurately as possible all grammatical lexical features of the source language original by finding equivalents in the target language. At the same all factual information contained in the original text must be retained in the translation.

There are three meanings for the word translation. It can refer to: 1) translating: the process of translating; 2) a translation: the product of the process of translating (i.e. the translated text); 3) translation: the abstract concept which combines both the process and the product of that process.

Translation as a process. The translation process can be broken down into two types of activity: understanding a source text and formulating a target text. These component processes of translation go hand in hand, i.e. they happen at the same time. Source text comprehension and target text formulation are not different from certain ordinary and familiar processes that all speakers perform every day whenever they listen to or read a text. Understanding everyday messages is not all that different from what a translator must do when first confronting a source text.

Extracting a message (by comprehension and interpretation) from a given form of words, and then re-expressing (by formulation and re-creation) the contents of that message in a different form of words is what translators do.

The target text expresses only the gist of the source text message; this is gist translation. At the other end, the target text is more wordy than the source text, explaining it and elaborating on it; this is exegetic translation.

gist translation rephrasing exegetic translation

Half-way between these two extremes there is a process that adds nothing to, and omits nothing from, the message content of the source text, while couching it in terms that are radically different from those of the source text. In form of expression the source text and the target text are quite different, but in message content they are as close as possible to one another. This ideal process may be called rephrasing.

Translation as a product. Translation can be also viewed as a product. Here, too, two opposed degrees of translation may by distinguished, showing extreme source language bias on

the one hand and extreme target language bias on the other.

At the extreme of source language bias is interlineal translation, where the target text does not necessarily respect target language grammar, but has grammatical units corresponding to every grammatical unit of the source text. Interlineal translation is rare, and is normally only used in language teaching or in linguistics. Interlineal translation is actually an extreme form of the much more common literal translation, where the literal meaning of words is taken as if from the dictionary, that is, out of context, but target language grammar is respected.

E.g. I’ll give you a piece of advice —я дам тобі шматок поради;

so the classic theory went —як йшла класична теорія;

one good turn deserves another — один добрий оберт заслуговує, іншого.

At the extreme of target language bias is completely free translation, where there is only a global correspondence, between the textual units of the source text and those of the target text. The extreme freedom is known as communicative translation, which is defined as follow: where, in a given situation, the source text uses а source language expression standard for that situation, the target text uses a target language expression standard for an equivalent target culture situation. This degree of freedom is no more to be recommended as general practice than interlineal translation. Communicative translation is, however, obligatory for proverbs and conversational cliches — that do not allow literal translation.

E.g. it rains cats and dogs —лиє як з відра;

great cry and little wool — більше диму як вогню;

don't halloo till you are out of the wood - не говори гоп, поки не перескочиш;

не вбивши ведмедя, не діли шкуру.

Between the two extremes of literal translation and free rendering, there is an infinite number of degrees, including some sort of ideal halfway point between the two

SL bias TL bias

(Interlineal) Literal Faithful Balanced idiomatic Free (Communicative)

Equivalence. In defining translation, we used the term equivalent (equal in value, amount, effect, meaning or significance; corresponding in meaning, position, function, etc.). Texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent), in respect of different levels of presentation (equivalent in respect of form, of meaning, of grammar) and at different ranks (word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence).

It is apparent, and has been for a very long time indeed, that the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera. A fundamental maxim of translation is that rephrasing never allows a precise reproduction of the message content of the source text, because of the very fact that the two languages are different from each other. There is no absolute synonymy between words in the same language, so why should anyone be surprised to discover a lack of synonymy between languages? Something is always "lost" or "gained" in the translation process and translators can find themselves being accused of reproducing only part of the original and so "betraying" the author's intentions.

The translator has the option of focusing on finding formal equivalents or finding functional equivalents. The choice (and it goes back to Classical times; Cicero 46 ВС) is between translating word-for-word {literal translation) or meaning-for-meaning (free translation). Pick the first and the translator is criticized for the "ugliness" of a "faithful" translation; pick the second and there is criticism of the "inaccuracy" of a "beautiful" translation. Either way it seems, the translator cannot win.

The ground-rules for adequate translation appear to have been laid down in an essay written in 1791 in an attempt to formulate a theory of translation: Essay on the Principles of translation by A. F. Tytler. They can be encapsulated in the title 0\ the first chapter: "Description of a good translation: general rules flowing from that description".

A. F. Tytler (i.e. Lord Woodhouselee) argues that the rules of translation would flow naturally from an accurate definition, or description, of a "good translation". He describes a good translation as

That in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work.

Thus, the target text should produce the same effects on its audience as those produced by the source text on its original readers (the principle of equivalent effect).

From this three rules of translation follow:

1) that the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work;

2) that the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original;

3) that the translation should have all the ease of the original composition.

Translation loss is best explained by analogy with engineering. All engineering is based on the admission that the transfer of energy in any mechanical device necessarily involves a certain degree of "energy loss". A machine that permits energy loss is not a theoretical anomaly in engineering: engineers are not puzzled as to why they have not achieved perpetual motion, and their attention is directed at trying to design machines with increased efficiency, by reducing energy loss.

By analogy, believing in translation equivalence encourages translators to believe in the elusive concept of a perfect translation standing at the ideal half-way point between source language bias and target language bias. But it is much more realistic to start by admitting that the transfer of meaning from a source text to a target text necessarily involves a certain degree of translation loss; that is, a target text will always lack certain relevant features that are present in the source text.

Translation loss is inevitable. The challenge to the translator is thus not to eliminate translation loss altogether, but to reduce it by deciding which of the relevant features in the source text it is most important to preserve, and which can be sacrificed in preserving them.

Translation is fraught with compromise. Compromise in translation means reconciling oneself to the fact that one's final target text will inevitably suffer from various translation losses. Translators often allow these losses unhesitatingly. For instance, a translator of prose may sacrifice the phonic properties of the source text in order to make its literal meaning perfectly clear, while a translator of verso may equally happily sacrifice much of the source text's literal meaning in order to achieve certain desired metric and phonic effects. These are just two examples of the many kinds of compromise translators make every day.

Compromise should be the result of deliberate decisions taken in the light not only of what latitudes ate allowed by the source language and target language respectively, but also of all the factors that can play a determining role in translation: the nature of the source text, its relationship to source language audiences, the purpose of the target text, its putative audience, and so forth. Only then can the translator have a firm grasp of which aspects of the source text can be sacrificed with the least detriment to the effectiveness of the target text.